9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) For the Respondent : None ORDER The appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.C.CUS.279/2006, dated 10.04.2006. 2. The issue in short is that the respondents had filed five bills of entry for warehousing vide no.447157, 447158, 447159, 447160 and 447161, all dated 11.12.2002, under DFRC Scheme claiming the benefit of Notification No.48/2000, dated 25.04.2000. The imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to the respondents on the date of shipment, the benefit was disallowed and Customs duty amounting to Rs. 84,12,718/- was held liable to be paid. When the issue was agitated before Commissioner (Appeals), he passed the impugned order allowing the benefit of DFRC licences and set aside the duty demands. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 4. With the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.05.2001 as well as 13.08.2001. The date of shipment is 21.11.2002, for which, the Bills of Entry were filed on 11.12.2002. From these dates, he has taken the view that the licences were very much valid on the date of shipment even though such licences were procured by the respondent on a date subsequent to the date of shipment. We do not find any infirmities in such a conclusion arrived by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
